Ethereum is an Ideal ICO Platform, Asserts Roger Ver

During the annual Devcon 5 conference for Ethereum, Roger Ver, a proponent of Bitcoin Cash, noted that initial coin offerings (ICOs) were experiencing a dormant trend despite their fundamentality in connecting investors and entrepreneurs across the globe. 

However, he acknowledged that Ethereum could come in handy in eradicating this challenge because it offers a fantastic ICO platform.

Ver stipulated, “Ethereum is fantastic as an ICO platform. If people want to have an ICO today, Ethereum is a fantastic platform to do it on because you have all this infrastructure already in place.”

He also acknowledged that decentralized finance or DeFi was emerging as a popular platform in the crypto-space. This can be depicted by the actuality that the decentralized applications (dApp) market is worth $500 million. 

Additionally, Ver proclaimed that the functionality of ERC-20 tokens or Ethereum in DeFi was exceptional. Nevertheless, if Bitcoin Cash was incorporated into the DeFi ecosystem, optimal results could be inevitable. 

Ver stated, “you can now make Bitcoin Cash tokens, send them to anyone, anywhere in the world, and then pay dividends directly on-chain to every token holder with whatever address and whatever country they are present in.”

Ver’s notion was that Ethereum could come in handy in revamping the ICO sector. 

Image via Shutterstock

Telegram Maintains Gram is not a Security, Urges Court to Deny SEC Action

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seems set on making an example of Telegram, but the fight is far from over. Telegram has asked, in an October 16th filing, the United States of America’s district court for the Southern District of New York to deny the request by the SEC for a preliminary injunction on Gram, Telegram’s native cryptocurrency.

Telegram also urged the court to pass an order that maintains the status quo regarding the offer, sale, or distribution of Grams. In the response filing, Telegram cited the lack of compliance from the SEC into entering into any discussion and believes the SEC is trying to “steamroll Telegram into consenting to a preliminary injunction where there is no need.”

The Counter twist in claims

The move by Telegram to deny these sets of requests by the SEC is in response to a filing by the SEC on October 11, 2019. Stephanie Avakian, Co-Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said;

“Our emergency action today is intended to prevent Telegram from flooding the U.S. markets with digital tokens that we allege were unlawfully sold,” she further maintained “…that the defendants have failed to provide investors with information regarding Grams and Telegram’s business operations, financial condition, risk factors, and management that the securities laws require.”

Telegram has thus responded to this filing by maintaining the position that Gram, though owned by Telegram, is not a security and, as such, should not be subjected to regulations that would be clearly undue.

This investment row between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and Telegram lies on the premise that Telegram did not register their Gram tokens as securities and based on clearly spelled exceptions governing the investments in securities which Telegram allegedly consented to, the commission is determined to prevent the sale of the tokens who are not licensed to partake in the unlisted security.

Telegram has maintained the position that Gram is merely a currency while telegram Telegram is not an ICO, the firm concluded that there is no need for the Court to enter a preliminary injunction in the filing as it is in compliance to delay the launch of the TON blockchain upon which the Gram currency is built.

Image via Shutterstock

How Kaspersky Protects Investors During Token Sales in 7 Ways

Exclusive interview with Yeo Siang Tiong, General Manager, South East Asia at Kaspersky: Part 1

Kaspersky has been a forerunner in managing cybersecurity threats in the cryptocurrencies and blockchain sector. In their “The Kaspersky’s Cryptocurrency Report 2019” issued earlier in June, 74% of respondents do not have a thorough understanding of how cryptocurrency works and 19% of them experienced exchange hacks. To gain an in-depth understanding of the state of cybersecurity in cryptocurrencies, we arranged an interview with Yeo Siang Tiong, General Manager, South East Asia at Kaspersky regarding the solutions provided by Kaspersky in mitigating cybersecurity risks in token offerings, crypto exchanges and mining. We explore how hackers exploit vulnerabilities of security during pre-sale and post-offerings of token sale and how Kaspersky can provide investor protection in 7 ways.

Can you share with us the main types of cybersecurity attacks in blockchain? Regarding token offering security, what are the cybersecurity threats during pre-sale and post-offering of token offerings?

In the crypto-economy, there are two kinds of attacks: attacks that focus on the blockchain core system and those that focus on the IT cybersecurity system where blockchain projects are hosted on.

We found that hackers generally stay away from exploiting vulnerabilities in cryptocurrencies because of how difficult they are to hack. They also rarely attack wallets directly. Usually, crypto-exchanges are a key area of focus for cybercriminals, given that they host huge volumes of crypto-funds and are mostly centralized applications. Typical threats for such applications include backdoors, embedded at the development stage, web vulnerabilities such as cross-site scripting (XSS), where malicious scripts are injected into otherwise trusted websites, and social engineering attacks such as phishing.

Another focus area for hackers also occurs during the process of crypto-fundraising, which is associated with a variety of threats at every stage – from product development and the ICO/IEO/STO announcement to the end of a token sale. While communicating with the public about a planned ICO/IEO/STO and the release of a draft whitepaper, hackers can be gathering information about the project and its team. They develop social engineering attacks, probing the team with malware, phishing, and social engineering. The hackers may try to penetrate the project and inject malicious code into its source code. When it comes to launching a website for an ICO/IEO/STO, there may be attempts to disrupt its work with DDoS attacks. Hackers may launch a phishing website or send fake or phishing announcements to your investors.

The largest attacks are often due to flaws in smart contracts. They can either disrupt transactions or be exploited by hackers. In addition to smart contract vulnerabilities, the product itself may be exposed to APTs, targeted attacks, or supply-chain attacks, and this could result in the theft of customers’ personal and financial data as well.  Hence, while blockchain technology is fundamentally secure, we need to remain vigilant and address cybersecurity issues pertaining to the blockchain core system as well as the traditional IT system that hosts websites and customer data.

What is the role of Kaspersky Penetration Testing and Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack in detecting smart contract vulnerabilities during a token sale?

Token sales raise billions of US dollars every year. This market has been actively growing for several years and is likely to continue to do so. However, the popularity of Token Sales procedures, including ICOs, IEOs, and STOs, makes them a prime target for fraudsters and other criminals.

One such solution to protect token sales from various types of threats is Kaspersky Penetration Testing. It is a practical demonstration of possible attack scenarios where a malicious actor may attempt to bypass security controls in a corporate network to obtain high privileges in important systems. This will give a greater understanding of security flaws in infrastructures, revealing vulnerabilities, analyzing the possible consequences of different forms of attack, evaluating the effectiveness of your current security measures, and suggesting remedial actions and improvements.

Based on leading security intelligence and advanced machine learning technologies, Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack Platform combines network data, sandbox, and intelligent analysis to correlate incidents, search for indicators of compromise and attacks, and help uncover the most complex targeted attacks. Connecting up the various pieces of an incident provides a comprehensive view of the entire attack chain, increasing confidence in assigned threat scores and reducing false positives to zero.

The Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack Platform includes three areas:

Multi-layered sensor architecture – to give ‘all-round’ visibility. Through a combination of network, web, and email, and endpoint sensors, the Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack Platform provides advanced detection at every level of your corporate IT infrastructure.
Advanced Sandbox – to assess new threats. The result of over a decade of continuous development, our Advanced Sandbox offers an isolated, virtualized environment where suspicious objects can be safely executed so their behavior can be observed.
Powerful analytical engines – for rapid verdicts and fewer false positives. The Targeted Attack Analyzer assesses data from network and endpoint sensors and rapidly generates threat detection verdicts for the security team.

Can you share with us Kaspersky’s solutions regarding investor protection?

In the crypto-economy, trust and assurance are essential to building up your customer base.

Kaspersky’s comprehensive solution is designed to protect token sales from various types of threats related to vulnerabilities in smart contracts and web platforms. We provide thorough code reviews, phishing detection, incident response, and education for staff.

Businesses can protect investors through this multi-pronged approach:

Perform an Application Security Assessment that analyses the state of security of applications (be it a decentralized or a traditional one);
Conduct Penetration Testing to identify weak spots in their systems and to ensure that hackers won’t penetrate them easily;
Initiate a Smart Contract Code Review that identifies flaws and undeclared features, as well as finds discrepancies between stated in the supporting documentation and smart-contract business logic;
Employ User Account Takeover Prevention to detect attempts from criminals to get access to user wallets;
Put in place Phishing Protection to provide alerts when phony copies of your website are generated;
Set up an Incident Response service and organize Cybersecurity awareness training to improve the overall level of cybersecurity hygiene;
Empower your system through real-time threat intelligence

Besides, assessing blockchain threats with the same – If not higher – the level of digital scrutiny, becomes imperative in safeguarding both the reputation of blockchain’s immutability and prevention of long-term consequences to compromised crypto-businesses.

Furthermore, acquiring a successful security assessment is an indicator that a business is offering a high quality/product solution/product. This helps to reassure customers that your solutions were robust enough to withstand any cyber-attacks.

Beijing Authorities Warns Institutions Not to Get Involved with Crypto

Beijing’s local authorities in China have issued a new risk warning on cryptocurrency trading activities. The Beijing Local Financial Supervision Administration, the Business Management Department of the People’s Bank of China, the Beijing Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau and the Beijing Securities Regulatory released further measures to ask firms not to engage in crypto businesses. 

According to Shanghai Securities News, the authorities said that cryptocurrency trading activities have shown signs of resurgence, after the recent promotion of blockchain technology in China. Several platforms in the country have “seriously violated” rules issued in 2017, banning initial coin offerings (ICOs).  

The reminder also pointed out that the financial management departments, network telecommunications management departments, public security departments within the jurisdiction to watch closely on cryptocurrency transactions, and ICOs. 

The authorities also warned institutions in Beijing to not promote cryptocurrency projects or platforms as well as not to provide services related to cryptocurrencies. Investors have also been urged to remain rational to avoid deception and were encouraged to report violations of laws and regulations. 

Image via Shutterstock

Telegram to Release Financial Statements to the SEC in Gram Token ICO Case

The United States Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has asked Telegram to release its financial statements, which includes bank records, as the regulator believes will prove the misconduct in the $1.7 billion offering of Gram tokens.

According to the filing on Jan. 13, by the international privacy laws and the new information with the court of the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Telegram has been given until Feb. 26 to make the bank records available; the court has denied SEC of this record in a previous ruling based on a privacy concern.

The ruling will allow Telegram to release a censored copy and provide it to the court, this would be done in accordance with foreign privacy regulations. According to the letter sent from the attorney for the defense to the court, Telegram will provide a redacted record on Jan. 15 before submitting them to the public record while a full copy would be made available to the SEC. All eyes will be on the next move to be made by the SEC, as Telegram’s attorney has agreed to make available these records available as it would serve as a bellwether of what they do or do not find in the new documents.

Philip Moustakis, an attorney with Seward and Kissel and formerly the senior counsel at the SEC said that they will be alerted to pick up any evidence of Telegram’s failure to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the purchasers were not acting as underwriters.

This case between SEC and Telegram started on Oct. 11, 2019,  the SEC had filed an emergency action as it demanded a cease-and-desist in Telegram’s ICO. The SEC had referred to the sale of the Gram tokens as securities offerings that are not registered, meanwhile, Telegram had argued that saying that it had met all the requirements to register as such an offering under Regulation D.

Image via Shutterstock

Cryptocurrencies Added to the List of Top Threats to Investors by Texas Security Board

According to the latest Texas Investors Guide, Texas regulators have added cryptocurrencies to the list of top threats to investors. In an edition of the states Securities Board’s “Texas Investor Guide: Strategies for Investing Wisely and Avoiding Financial Fraud,” the regulatory body included cryptocurrencies to the list of investments with potential red flags. The report described cryptocurrencies as extraordinarily volatile and challenging to grasp for people who are not professional traders.

The report stated the investment opportunities in cryptocurrency mining pools and ICO’s director at senior and retirees, who obviously place security over speculation. They further went ahead to warn, “In the riskiest cryptocurrency-related offerings, promoters do not provide audited records or other financial information to back up their claims of extraordinarily high profits. […] Promoters’ claims of ‘secure’ cryptocurrency-related investments and ‘guaranteed’ profits should be approached with caution: Cryptocurrencies tend to be extremely volatile, and investors may be unable to quickly liquidate products tied to them.”

In the document, the regulators advised that potential investors should not take part in cryptocurrency offerings unless the basic facts of the company and its physical location can be determined. The guide further explained that investors could send funds to third parties, and they further outlined the need to deal only with entities that are registered, keeping in mind that people who fall prey to any deceptive body will be left helpless. The report also listed unregistered individuals, oil and gas offerings, and promissory notes along with cryptocurrencies.

Late last month, the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) — an international investor protection organization mentioned cryptocurrencies as being amongst the top five threats to investors for the year 2020. This report included the top five schemes with high chances of getting investors trapped this year, and all these were based on complaints, ongoing investigations, and the current enforcement trends.

Image via Shutterstock

Enigma Settles With US SEC Over Unregistered 2017 ICO

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced it has settled charges against blockchain startup Enigma MPC.

According to a statement by the SEC on Feb 19, Enigma had been charged by the regulatory body for conducting an unregistered offering of securities in the form of an initial coin offering (ICO). 

The SEC’s order found that Enigma had raised nearly $45 million in sakes if its token ENG in 2017. The SEC identified the tokens as securities and therefore fell under the federal securities law, meaning that Enigma had failed to register them as such and did not qualify for an exemption.

Enigma reached a settlement with the SEC and “has agreed to return funds to harmed investors via a claims process, register its tokens as securities, file periodic reports with the SEC, and pay a $500,000 penalty.”

While Enigma did not admit or deny the findings of the order, they agreed on the terms of the claims process and consented to register the ENG Tokens as securities and file periodic reports. John T. Dugan, Associate Director for Enforcement in the SEC’s Boston Regional Office. “The remedies in today’s order provide ICO investors with an opportunity to obtain compensation and provide investors with the information to which they are entitled as they make investment decisions.”

Regulatory Clarity

Despite the outcries of regulatory uncertainty within the US blockchain and crypto space, the SEC has maintained throughout that digital tokens likely fall under US securities laws. The SEC has punctuated this stance through enforcement against high profile projects like Telegram and EOS provider, Block.One who was fined 24 million dollars for its ICO offering.

Prior to his withdrawal from the race, presidential candidate, Andrew Yang recently discussed how the mess of regulations in the US is stifling innovation. He said, “Right now we’re stuck with this hodgepodge of state-by-state treatments and it’s bad for everybody: it’s bad for innovators who want to invest in this space. So that would be my priority is clear and transparent rules so that everyone knows where they can head in the future and that we can maintain competitiveness.”

To make matters worse, some regulators currently seem unwilling to offer guidance.

As reported by Blockchain.News, the IRS recently refused the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to clarify and disclaim sections of their 2019 Crypto Tax guidance. GAO had conducted the report evaluating the IRS’ current approach and public guidelines on cryptocurrency following Rep. Ken Brady’s (R-TX) request for clarity on how taxes are levied against cryptocurrency.

The IRS refused the recommendation although the justification was dissatisfying.

Relief May Be Coming

What may bring relief to others innovating in the space is that the SEC’s Commissioner Hester Peirce has doubled down on her recent suggestion to provide decentralized network developers a safe harbor and has even submitted a formal draft proposal. 

On Feb. 7, Peirce spoke at the International Blockchain Congress in Chicago and outlined her token safe harbor proposal which would grant blockchain projects a three-year exemption for US securities laws.  

Image via Shutterstock

Chelsea Football Club Owner Abramovich Confirmed as Investor in Telegram's 2018 ICO

The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) investigation into Telegram’s $1.7 billion initial coin offering (ICO) in 2018 has revealed that some very big names took part in the unregistered offering.

According to a court document, one of the investors was Russian oligarch and Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich who bought tokens (grams) via an offshore fund.

The Russian tycoon’s name, along with the amount he invested, was recorded in the document by Stephen Mckeon, a professor at the University of Oregon who was hired by Telegram to write a report on the Telegram Open Network (TON) project.

Abramovich appeared to get involved in the second round known as Stage A in March 2018. Telegram raised another $850 million on top of the same amount raised in the first round.

The SEC and Telegram

Although reports did surface in 2018 suggesting that Abramovich had invested in the first round, Telegram kept the names of the ICO investors secret, and the investors were additionally prohibited from talking publicly about their participation.

It was only when a court filing initiated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) compelled Telegram to reveal bank records and other transactional documents showing how the raised funds have been used in the last two years that the blockchain project.

The filing stated: “Plaintiff respectfully moves to compel Defendants to answer questions and provide documents regarding the amounts, sources, and use of funds raised from investors in connection with the unregistered sale of securities at issue in this case, Defendants are now refusing to disclose the bank records concerning how they have spent the $1.7 billion they raised from investors in the past two years and to answer questions about the disposition of investor funds.”

It was in the Telegram funded report by Mckeon, that the SEC discovered that the TON ICO received $10 million from Norma Investments Limited, a fund based in the British Virgin Islands which the regulator has identified as being controlled by Abramovich.

Abramovich is best known as the owner of Premier League contenders Chelsea Football Club and is alleged to have intimidated his former business partner into selling him the controlling share of their joint oil venture.

Ruling Before TON Mainnet Launch

This investment row between the United States SEC and Telegram is based on the premise that Telegram did not register their Gram tokens as securities.

The TON network was scheduled to go live and launch last October, but the SEC filed a lawsuit just prior tot he deadline. The suit was highly contested by Telegram who asked the US courts to overrule the regulator’s action, they were denied. After the months of exchanging legal papers, the sides met in court on Feb. 19.

The presiding judge has promised to rule on the case before the new deadline for the TON mainnet launch of April 30.

Image via Shutterstock

Telegram Prohibited from Issuing Gram Tokens as US Court Grants SEC's Injunction

A United States District Court has sided with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) granting an injunction against Telegram to to temporarily prevent the company from issuing its Gram tokens.

Gram is a security according to Howey Test

The cryptocurrency and blockchain community have been closely watching the court case between the SEC and Telegram over the legal status of the latter’s $1.7 billion token offerings. The SEC has maintained throughout that the tokens sold were unregistered securities and today a US district court has sided with the regulator.

In a March 24 filing, the Court granted the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the sale of Gram tokens.

As per the Court’s filing, “The Court finds that the SEC has shown a substantial likelihood of success in proving that the contracts and understandings at issue, including the sale of 2.9 billion Grams to 175 purchasers in exchange for $1.7 billion, are part of a larger scheme to distribute those Grams into a secondary public market, which would be supported by Telegram’s ongoing efforts. Considering the economic realities under the Howey test, the Court finds that, in the context of that scheme, the resale of Grams into the secondary public market would be an integral part of the sale of securities without a required registration statement.”

The story continues

The saga began when a suit was brought against Telegram last October from the SEC, as the regulator believes that Telegram violated the Securities Act with its 2018 token offering by not adhering to the registration requirements.

According to the SEC, citing the Securities Act of 1933, Telegram and TON failed to register their sale of Gram tokens, and the SEC considers the sale to be “unlawful.” The SEC’s complaint reads, “Telegram committed to delivering Grams to the Initial Purchasers in conjunction with the launch of the TON Blockchain by no later than Oct. 31, 2019, and it plans to sell millions of additional Grams at the same time.”

Telegram has maintained its stance that the ICO was authorized to sell to accredited investors since the company had filed a Form D 506(c) Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities prior to the first round of its offering. The court has disqualified this argument in the recent injunction filing, which read, “Telegram’s sale of Grams to the Initial purchasers, who will, function as statutory underwriters, is the first step in an ongoing public distribution of securities and, as such, Telegram cannot receive the benefit of an exemption from the registration requirement under either section 4(a) of Rule 506 (c).”

The SEC’s Howey Test

As investment continues to increase in the cryptocurrency space has grown, the SEC has become increasingly interested in defining cryptocurrencies.

If the SEC is able to determine that a particular cryptocurrency token is classified as a security, that brings about a host of implications for that cryptocurrency. Effectively, it means the SEC can determine whether or not the token can be sold to US investors legally or not; it also compels US investors to register their token holdings with the SEC.

When applying the Howey Test, the question to ask, in this case, is whether or not Gram’s investors were participating in a speculative enterprise, and if so, if the profits those investors believe they will receive are entirely dependent upon the work of Telegram.

On Feb. 18, Telegram’s lawyer, Alexander Drylewski had criticized the application of the SEC’s Howey Test, citing that a test designed to categorize securities does not apply to digital assets that are offered with a promise of managerial oversight, that will increase their value over time. The lawyer argued that when TON blockchain launches, Grams will not be securities but commodities.

The injunction filing also indirectly countered Drylewski’s stance—rejecting Telegram’s argument that Gram should not fall under the SEC’s jurisdiction as it would soon become a commodity, the Court stated, “The Court rejects Telegram’s characterization of the purported security, in this case. While helpful as a shorthand reference, the security, in this case, is not simply the Gram, which is little more than alphanumeric cryptographic sequence. Howey refers to an investment contract…that consists of the full sets of contracts, expectations, and understandings centered on the sales and distribution of the Gram. Howey requires and examination of the entirety of the parties’ understanding and expectations.”

Telegram Appeals Federal Court Injunction to Stop Gram Distribution

Telegram has filed an appeal to yesterday’s ruling by a United Stated federal court in favour of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which has prohibited the issuance of Gram tokens for the time being.

Court Sides with SEC early

The SEC has won an important decision in their court case against Telegram over the legal status of the latter’s $1.7 billion Gram  token offering in 2018. The SEC has maintained throughout that the tokens sold were unregistered securities and yesterday the US federal court granted the regulator an injuction to halt the distribution of Grams as the legal battle continues.

The injunction states, “For reasons that will be more fully explained, the Court finds that the SEC has shown a substantial likelihood of success in proving that Telegram’s present plan to distribute Grams is an offering of securities under the Howey test to which no exemption applies. The motion for a preliminary injunction will be granted.”

The SEC believes through its examination via the Howey test that the contracts governing the Telegram’s token issuance qualify Gram tokens as securities. Per the filing, ““Under the Howey test, the series of contracts and understandings centered on Grams are a security within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).”

Telegram immediately filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Former SEC Counsel Has Little Hope for Appeal

The evidence being presented to the court by the SEC’s Howey Test appears to have compelled them to act in favour of the regulator early in the legal proceedings – this cannot be a good sign for Telegram and their TON network.

On Feb. 18, Telegram’s lawyer, Alexander Drylewski had criticized the application of the SEC’s Howey Test, citing that a test designed to categorize securities does not apply to digital assets that are offered with a promise of managerial oversight, that will increase their value over time. The lawyer argued that when TON blockchain launches, Grams will not be securities but commodities.

Philip Moustakis, attorney at Seward & Kissel LLP and former SEC counsel told Blockchain.News that Telegram’s defense was not looking good and believes the SEC has applied the Howey test correctly.

Moustakis said,“Telegram argues the “interests in Grams” are one transaction and the “delivery of Grams,” another.  However, the court, rightly in my view, held the Howey test requires it to examine the entire series of understandings, transactions, and undertakings at the time they were made, meaning the totality of the facts and circumstances underlying the economic reality of the investment, including at the moment in time when investors separated with their money.” He concluded, “In other words, an issuer cannot avoid application of the federal securities laws by separating in time the capital raise and the delivery of the digital representation of the investor’s interest in that capital raise. And, at delivery, in my view, the Grams would still represent the series of promises and understandings that led up to their distribution”

The case between the SEC and Telegram is ongoing and we will continue to bring you updates.  

Exit mobile version